Spurious BA Cancellations

Back to Forum

This topic contains 11 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  Age_of_Reason 16 May 2010
at 11:09
.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

  • Anonymous

    Age_of_Reason
    Participant

    It is reported today (P&J 15 May) that BA has repeated its habit of cancelling scottish flights for its own operational convenience. Blaming a ‘dust cloud’ for 2 cancellations to ABZ and one to EDI when these airports were open according to local travel information systems and being used as normal by other airlines.

    BA accused of misleading travellers on cancellations
    ASH BLAMED FOR GROUNDED ABERDEEN FLIGHTS BUT OTHER CARRIERS UNAFFECTED

    By Ryan Crighton and Declan Harte

    Published: 15/05/2010

    Read more: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1738279#commentAnchor#ixzz0nzztBZjd

    Bad luck is tolerable.; corporate lies are NOT. Can we ever trust BA again?


    CharlieBrown
    Participant

    Just flew from Edinburgh this morning. I saw the LCY embraer on the ground and also witnessed a BA LGW land and BA LHR take off. Maybe the Icelandic dust cloud was a bit cross and decided to be selective about which flights it would affect. I did remember thinking the cancellation sounded quite random when hearing it announced and yes they simply cited “operational reasons”.


    VintageKrug
    Participant

    I think you mean spurious, rather than “spurrous”.

    But the next bout of impending doom is upon us, and being reported by the BBC:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8684540.stm

    So this may not be all that spurious; there may have been a technical problem, or any other reason for the delay. Without being party to the actual reason, it is difficult to make an informed judgement.


    Age_of_Reason
    Participant

    Oh VK you pedantic Troll….. Impending doom, rehearsed by BA today (just in case we need practice at cancelling flights – should be expert by now, surely?).
    And three aircraft, at 2 airports, with ‘tech faults’ – non-tolerable defects – I suggest customer non-tolerance is being tested. And there should be a public service obligation to stop this behaviour.


    NTarrant
    Participant

    Any cancellation is a complete and utter pain. I think the problem we suffer in the UK is that companies are frightened sometimes to say exactly why something is not operating. Using generic terms as “operational reasons” as to why it is cancelled or delayed.

    It is not just airlines, trains, buses and ferries are the same. But that aside, what exactly is a “non-tolerable defect”?


    SimonRowberry
    Participant

    Nigel – I think a “tolerable defect” is where a plane is knackered, but not too knackered to fly and put passenger safety at risk; and a “non-tolerable defect” is where it’s too knackered for comfort!

    Talking about passenger information on delays, etc, the best I ever saw was at Nanjing Airport a couple of years ago. It said (and I wish I could post the photo I took on here):

    “Flight MHxxx to Schenzen in delayed until xxx.

    Due to some reason.”

    Utterly logical and totally true!

    Regards,

    Simon


    NTarrant
    Participant

    Thanks for the clarification Simon, do you per chance get Transit magazine? In the latest edition is a very good destination display on an Australian train, inside back cover!

    I always liked the honest of the announcement at Newark many years ago, apologising for the delay to the Denver flight the announcement was that it was due to the cockpit window having to be replaced and that if you looked out the window at gate XX you will see the “mainteance guys” repairing it. On looking out as I was passing there was these “guys” occasionally looking and giving cheesy grins and waves.

    Regards

    Nigel


    Age_of_Reason
    Participant

    So to summarise this discussion so far – BA are not only liars, but unimaginative liars. It will therefore be OK for BA to continue to lie about real reasons for cancelling connections to places they don’t regard as important (which we hope will never be used to justify service reductions).

    And it’s all ok if it’s accompanied by cheery craik – maybe WW’s employment is secure, just needs to find its level?


    RogerVictor
    Participant

    I know for a fact that the internal BA requirements for ash cloud concentration and the planes allowed proximity to it are more stringent than those set by the CAA. On the day in question the ‘high density’ ash cloud was within BA’s buffer zone therefore the Aberdeen flights didn’t operate until either very late or where cancelled.


    MartynSinclair
    Participant

    Remember Old Age, there are always 2 sides to every story – so until you know both for certain, go easy on calling people liars. We run an open forum but like to think that contributors have factual information from all sides before “firing the rockets, which invariably fall short of the target”!


    Age_of_Reason
    Participant

    My information came from a published source, referenced in the first posting, and which has yet to be refuted.
    My motivation is to stimulate discussion, and facilitate the pooling of information, so that truth, however inconvenient, will coalesce.
    In the long term the awareness that bad (or good) publicity can result will improve the performance of our services.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Be up-to-date
Magazine Subscription
To see our latest subscription offers for Business Traveller editions worldwide, click on the Subscribe & Save link below
Polls